- Apr 10, 2007
- Reaction score
- Pittsburgh, PA
I understand that you *think* that is the case, just as I think there's a great chance it might be otherwise. I normally wouldn't bother saying as much, but you did call me out on evidence a bit later down. And I think reasonable people know full well in martial arts, it is unlikely that anyone can prove unchanged intent in virtually anything, unless a full chronological journal or monograph is available from the beginning to the end of the subject, and that just doesn't exist for the Chang Hon patterns to my knowledge.
The intent behind the tul have been the same since at least 1965. You can check the texts like I have (1965 and 1972 textbooks and the 1983 and 1993 encyclopedias). If you familiarize yourself with what Gen. Choi says about patterns it becomes quite apparent that the intent has remained the same over the years, even with the technical changes that have occurred.
Well, I would be interested in seeing your bibliography that gives a full history beginning to finish of the Chang Hon patterns, showing how they have never changed in intent nor execution at all. Such a thing might meet the definition of 'evidence' as I understand it. I don't believe it exists but certainly if you've got it, I'd like to see it.
Why so defensive? I never said anything about the tul not changing in execution. Frankly, I can think of three of them off the top of my head that have changed in execution in the sense that some of the techniques in them were changed over time. But, again, if you know what Gen. Choi says about the purpose of the tul you'll see that the intent has remained the same.
As for my bibliography it's the 1965 textbook, 1972 textbook, 1983 encyclopedia, and 1993 encyclopedia. They were all written by Gen. Choi. I don't know why he would lie about what his intent about the patterns were, though.
I'll readily admit I don't have anything myself that I would be comfortable denoting as evidence. All I have are informal discussions I had in person with some first, second, and third generation students of Jhoon Rhee and Haeng Ung Lee hence why I use the phrase "undercurrent of feeling". I can cite a few of them by PM after I get their permission if you would find their names interesting. I would suspect you would not, but hey I've got them.
Sure, I'd be interested in hearing who they are and what they say. Why wouldn't I be? Post them up here in the thread if you want or send their names and what they said about Gen. Choi's intention to me as a PM. Have you had any discussions with people who studied with Gen. Choi or discussed this topic with him? I've been able to discuss tul with Master Parm Rai, who accompanied Gen. Choi as an assistant for his seminars, and Master Robert Wheatley, who was able to train with Gen. Choi many times while he was training in Ireland. Grand Master Choi, Jung Hwa has mentioned some interesting faccts about how some of the tul developed and changed over time, too.